1994 P Cr (PLP)

(2)??????? There is a diffuse swelling on nose with abrasion of 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. on front of nose. There was also bleeding from nose. Patient was drowzy and was vomiting. Injuries Nos.l and 2 were kept under observation for X-ray and clinical observations. Exh.P.D. is the report of X-ray according to which injury No.l was declared as Shajjah Khafifah, while injury No.2 as Shajjah Munaqqilah because there was fracture of nasal bone.

7. On the same day i.e. 20-1-1990, he examined Muhammad Khan son of Sher Muhammad and noted the following injuries on his person:-- (1)??????? There was contusion of 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. present on the back of the left side of chest below the scapula. (2)??????? There was contusion of 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. present on the back of the left side of chest 3 c.m. below the injury No.l (3)??????? There was swelling of 5 c.m. x 6 c.m. of the left shoulder joint, All the injuries were kept under observation for X-ray. According to the report Exh.P.F. injury No.3 was as Ghayer Jaifa Damiyah.

8. On the same day i.e. 20-1-1992, he also examined Mst. Hakan Bibi wife of Ali Muhammad at 7 p.m. and noted the following injuries:

(1)??????? There was a swelling of 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. with two parallel lacerated wounds of 5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the right side of scalp 8 c.m. above the right ear. The injury was muscle deep. (2)??????? There was swelling of 8 c.m. x 7 c.m. on the back and front of the middle of right forearm. The above injuries were kept under observation for X-ray. On receipt of X-ray report both the injuries were declared as Shajjah Khafifah and Ghayer Jaifah Damiyah vide X-ray report Exh.P.H.

9. On 21-1-1992 at 10-30 a.m. he examined the dead body of Hayat Bibi wife of Fateh Khan, caste Rahi aged about 30 years, and found the following injuries on the dead body:-- (1)??????? There was swelling of 6 c.m. x 5 c.m. present on the occipital region of? head. (2)??????? There was a contusion mark of 5 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. muscle deep present on the left side and top of the head. (3)??????? There was a contusion mark of 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. with swelling of 8 c.m. x 7 c.m. present on the back of the lower part of the left chest just below the scapula. (4)??????? There was a lacerated wound on the outer and upper part of left thigh? near left hip joint. On dissection clotted blood was seen on the posterior half of the skull. There was depressed fracture of occipital bone in an area of 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. On further dissection intercranial haemorrhage with clotted blood was present. Meninges were torn at the side of injury No.l. Brain was lacerated at the occipital bone. It was torn in pieces and brain matter was coming out from torn meninges. Spinal cord and vertebrae were normal. Ribs and muscle at the side of injury No.3 only clotted blood was seen. Other ribs and cartilages were normal. All the other organs were healthy. In his opinion death in this case occurred due to injury No.l which was caused by blunt weapon and was cause of fracture of occipital bone, haemorrhage and shock. In his opinion the probable duration between injuries and death was within two hours while between death and post-mortem was twenty hours.

10. The complainant Muhammad Ramzan P.W.7, reiterated whatever he had said in the F.I.R. with the addition that it was not Fateh Khan but his son Muhammad Khan who gave some Sota blows to some of the accused to save Fateh Khan and Mst. Hayat Bibi. Fateh Khan injured P.W. appeared as P.W.8 and corroborated the statement of the complainant. Dost Muhammad, S.I. appeared as P.W.9, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Khan P.Ws. were given up by the learned D.D.A.

11. All the accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. pleaded not guilty and had stated that it was Fateh Khan who wanted to get rid of his wife and for that reason he manufactured a story to shift the burden to our shoulders who were not ready to share with him in the agricultural estate of Muhammad Khan accused. However, they did not produce any evidence in defence.

12. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there appears a likelihood of the existence of a right of private defence and being convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, giving benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents acquitted them of the charge of murder and murderous assault on the P.W.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length and the record of the case perused with his assistance.

14. The learned counsel argued for setting aside the impugned judgment, whereby, respondents Nos.1 to 4 have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, primarily on the ground that as the respondents had taken up the plea of self-defence, therefore, the instant case is not one of total acquittal.

15. However, the learned counsel failed to meet with the objection in this respect to the effect that, as admittedly, the accused had suffered injuries including grievous injury, therefore, in accordance with the accepted principle of law the right of self-defence cannot be weighed in golden scales and that in A the event of grievous injury having been suffered by a member of the respondents party, the right of self-defence thus accrued to them had to be a step higher to causing grievous injury in self-defence. In this respect strength is sought by placing reliance on the said dictum laid down in 1972 S C M R 597 and 1985 S C M R

510. In addition thereto further strength is sought by placing reliance on Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraaz Khan and others P L D 1985 SC 11 wherein it was held that ?no interference with an order of acquittal will take place even if a different reasonable conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record and that the finding of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous, or it is such a conclusion which no reasonable person would conceivably arrive at?.

16. Pursuant to the above discussions, the present criminal revision petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./M-1394/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Acquittal maintained.